Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:30:43 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Language? (works of art)


On Thu, 14 May 1998, Mike Staples wrote:

> Lather. Rinse. Repeat. wrote:
> 
> > If the notes on the page do indeed signify, do they signify certain
> > sounds
> > or certain actions? (I suppose notated electronic music would
> > complicate
> > this issue.)  Or do they signify something more like vibrations (in
> > the
> > air, on a string) or even mathematical ratios?
> 
> And yet, it isn't the significatory features of notes on paper that is
> music. The meaning of music is not as an indicator. Music is its own
> meaning, is it not? And I would think something similar to language,
> that the essence of language is not to be found in the
> signifcator/signified formula, or the vibrations in the air.

I would certainly agree that neither the essence of language nor the
essence of music is to be found in the signifier/signified formula --
though it seemed to me that the discussions stemming from consideration of
music as a possible "symbolic system of signs" toyed with this
possibility.

Are you suggesting that music itself is its own meaning or that pieces of
music (works of art) are integral, intentional objects (i.e., each piece
of music is its own meaning)?  I'm not sure how to grasp the former
possibility, whereas the latter I'm afraid I can't agree with, for I
simply don't buy the positivistic phenomenological assertion (however
attractive and compelling it may be) that the essence of a work of art is
independent of the "non-artistic" contexts in which the work of art is
situated, presented, created, or produces its effects.  I must, however,
confess that I'll have to go back to Heidegger's writings on works of art
to (try to) discover whether and to what degree Heidegger's treatment of
works of art is positivistic in the sense I described. 

Jay

			   jwt-AT-dana.ucc.nau.edu
:::::::::::::::::::::::=============================-------------------------




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---